4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[bailey1987]

Originally Posted by danilo

The problem is that 35mm film has 4k at best. I mean the original negative: interpositive or internegative have around 3 or 3,5K. This is the reason why the most part of Blu-ray disc don't look very well. In Hollywood only a very few movie today has the original old negative. In short ONLY VERY VERY FEW movies from the past can have a real vantage in 4K (I think non more of 10%). In the present days too many movies are made in 2K or in 4K but edit in 2K.
At the end, I really think that the 4k Blu-ray will be probably a fiasco. In my opinion could be better to works to have more quality in normal Blu-ray.

I think your numbers are wrong, I'm sure 35mm is closer to 6.5K. Also resolution is just one thing the amount of colours being displayed is another, I think film does capture the whole colour gamut.

[Geoff D]

6.5K? Nah. Arri's own tests on Super 35 shot on the finest-grained stock with the best optics topped out at 4K.

[schan1269]

Problem with "film stock", there are so many variables.

If you had the original "film shot on scene" then 35 "could be" as high as 4.8K.

(if I remember correctly, Arri already presumes a "reasonable dupe for shipping".

I have 35 years B&W and 15 years color medium format still photography experience. I've made dupes of 35 and medium. I've shot on $5 film, then duped to $1 film. That creates a variance...)

[danilo]

Originally Posted by bailey1987

I think your numbers are wrong, I'm sure 35mm is closer to 6.5K. Also resolution is just one thing the amount of colours being displayed is another, I think film does capture the whole colour gamut.

It is possible to have around 6.5k only with 70mm film. Keep in mind that frames in 35 film for movie are more little then frames in 35mm photo. All test show that there is nothing more beyond 4k in normal 35mm negative film (and the film must be new and in very good conditions).

[Spike M.]

Penton could probably provide the actually document, but I believe Arri found that on the finest stock, a 35mm IP projected had no visible benefits over that same IP being scanned at 6K and projected at 4K. Very few movies shoot on ideal stocks or in ideal lighting conditions, too. Using the magic of math, with 35mm = 4K = 8.8 million pixels at 16x9, then you can start seeing the actual resolutions of format's like 5 and 15/70mm. My math puts IMAX at 10K (rounding to about 10,000x7,000... as IMAX at 16x11 is 8 times the resolution of 8.8m = 70.4m), and something like Ultra 5/70mm still being 10K horizontally, but with a height of 3,000 instead of 7,000, resulting in reduction of some 55% of the image space of IMAX.

[Joce]

Originally Posted by danilo

The problem is that 35mm film has 4k at best. I mean the original negative: interpositive or internegative have around 3 or 3,5K. This is the reason why the most part of Blu-ray disc don't look very well. In Hollywood only a very few movie today has the original old negative. In short ONLY VERY VERY FEW movies from the past can have a real vantage in 4K (I think non more of 10%). In the present days too many movies are made in 2K or in 4K but edit in 2K.
At the end, I really think that the 4k Blu-ray will be probably a fiasco. In my opinion could be better to works to have more quality in normal Blu-ray.

Kodak states that 35mm film has the equivalent of 6K resolution.

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/arri4K.pdf

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Joce

Kodak states that 35mm film has the equivalent of 6K resolution.

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/arri4K.pdf

That's an oversampled image rate to minimize noise. Which means it's actually roughly 3K for Super35.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

6.5K? Nah. Arri's own tests on Super 35 shot on the finest-grained stock with the best optics topped out at 4K.

Sorry Bails, danilo and Geoff ^ are correct (whose to quibble about 153 pixels)…..if people fail to understand the concept, try reading the SMPTE 2009 Journal Award recipient paper….4K+ Systems: Theory Basics for Motion Picture Imaging…….
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...53#post9994270 . But keep in mind that 4,153 pixel figure is the absolute highest value, e.g. perfect conditions with when you have locked down camera frames, no filter, prime/ultra prime lenses, low ISO film. The industry consensus for the end product given real world conditions is believed to be typically around 3.2 – 3.4K.


Anyway measuring dem pixels is old news, these days people are more into measuring dem nits…..

SIGGRAPH 2015 ETech: High-Brightness HDR Projection Using Dynamic-Phase Modulation (MTT) - YouTube

And Beyond the matter of spatial rez, enlightened, cutting-edge studios have progressed to now become more interested in bit depth, i.e. shooting, working and archiving in 4K 16bit in order to preserve all the color fidelity and dynamic range of the original footage.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by danilo

It is possible to have around 6.5k only with 70mm film.

For 65mm film, absolute highest theoretical resolution possible (storage capacity) measures in at 8746 × 3835 pixels…….again according to the award winning paper.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Spike M.

Penton could probably provide the actually document,

I’m overheated, under hydrated and just back from our morning ride. I’ll post the original article later is anyone is truly interested after I’ve got my soccer fix (two matches yet to watch).

Feet up…..signing off.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by schan1269

Problem with "film stock", there are so many variables.

If you had the original "film shot on scene" then 35 "could be" as high as 4.8K.

(if I remember correctly, Arri already presumes a "reasonable dupe for shipping".

I have 35 years B&W and 15 years color medium format still photography experience. I've made dupes of 35 and medium. I've shot on $5 film, then duped to $1 film. That creates a variance...)

But doesn't still photography utilise 35mm as horizontal 8-perf? You should be good at up to 6K for that (see: the new Spartacus restoration) whereas vertical 4-perf motion picture 35mm using the entire aperture really does max out at 4K, with a 6K scan needed only for the purposes of oversampling to avoid aliasing etc, as Peter rightly said.

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by Joce

Kodak states that 35mm film has the equivalent of 6K resolution.

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/arri4K.pdf

I'll take the word of professionals and camera companies over the word of the company making the film ANY day.

Of course Kodak is going to stretch the numbers any way they can get away with to make their film look as good on paper as possible.

[dubious]

Speaking of 35mm, for the record, 135 horizontal 8-perf 35mm is used for still photography. 35mm 4-perf for motion pictures is half the frame size.

I've also heard the theory that since film is a composite of multiple layers, the particulates are non-uniform in shape, nor are they alligned in their stacked position to overlap precisely. Think of a three color charts with the overlapping regions producing the combined shades, but then repeat that pattern with non-circular regions that may overlap more than one of another color's pools.

Scanning at 6 or 8K then scaling down might produce more color accuracy in the end result, but 4K was the upper range of overall detail.

[danilo]

Another important point is that for 50 years or more the the cimema audience has always seen in the theaters movies almost 3 (or more) generations away from the film negative. Practically we always have seen movie at around 1,5K (more or less).
There are for sure other factors to give at the audience a good imagine: colors, dynamic range and a solid black. And as we know solid black is the terrible present problem in d-conema like in LCD screens.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by spectre08

I'll take the word of professionals and camera companies over the word of the company making the film ANY day.

Of course Kodak is going to stretch the numbers any way they can get away with to make their film look as good on paper as possible.

Again you guys aren't reading the pertinent information:

He says that the 4K+ study concludes that it would take a 6K resolution scan to transfer the maximum amount of image information recorded on frames of Super 35 film with minimal aliasing and noise

They aren't saying there's 6K of info on there. They are saying they need to transfer the film at a higher resolution (supersample) to get rid of scan artifacts. It's the same in the digital audio world (why stuff is mastered at 48kHz when there is only 20kHz of audio in there).

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Again you guys aren't reading the pertinent information:

Please don’t use the plural ‘guys’, re-read the first sentence of paragraph 2 from last November.

Spectre, think of it this way, the ‘inherent’ or native resolution of film is much lower than the resolution of the device (a film scanner) that is needed to optimally capture/harvest that detail….to then enter a color grading workflow.

But I appreciate your skepticism because at quick glance, the Kodak advertisement would give the impression that the ‘inherent' resolution of Super 35 is 6K, which it is not - http://c-sideprod.ch/wp-content/medi...10/4K_plus.pdf

Digital acquisition (cameras) have also had their resolution marketing *flaws* in a sense, given less than 100% efficient photosite debayer.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by danilo

Another important point is that for 50 years or more the the cimema audience has always seen in the theaters movies almost 3 (or more) generations away from the film negative. Practically we always have seen movie at around 1,5K (more or less).

For additional reference, I posted this ITU SG6 report somewhere on this forum years ago….. http://www.motionfx.gr/files/35mm_re...on_english.pdf

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by danilo

There are for sure other factors to give at the audience a good imagine: colors, dynamic range and a solid black.

Quentin certainly believes so much as to put his money where his mouth is....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Beverly_Cinema

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Quentin certainly believes so much as to put his money where his mouth is....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Beverly_Cinema

He also doesn't know that digital captures 24 still frames per second, too, so.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Spike M.

He also doesn't know that digital captures 24 still frames per second, too, so.

Doesn't matter to me for now, for he's putting out a film in my favorite genre....http://www.ew.com/article/2015/08/10...d2c9f197cf4898